1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

EM-5 IBIS test - the farthest thing I could shoot.

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by bitmatt, May 2, 2012.

  1. bitmatt

    bitmatt Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Apr 7, 2012
    Cleveland
    Matt
    I screwed the big old Zuiko 50-200mm (the mark 1 version) onto the E-M5 and looked for the longest handheld shot I could get to test the fancy 5 axis IBIS on extreme telephoto. Think I found it. I ended up taking about 60 shots at different settings. Most were okay to pretty good, but this one is nice. Only regret is that it is very cloudy so I couldn't get the dark side at all through the haze.

    E-M5, Zuiko 50-200 mkI, 200mm, ISO 200, f/6.3, 1/50, handheld, manual focus
    [​IMG]

    At 100%, dead middle of frame-
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 18
  2. bitmatt

    bitmatt Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Apr 7, 2012
    Cleveland
    Matt
    One day I'll remember where the dash goes in "E-M5". :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. bitmatt

    bitmatt Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Apr 7, 2012
    Cleveland
    Matt
    UPDATE- clear night tonight! After setting the proper exposure & focus, 80% of my shots turned out sharp. The IBIS is terrific, especially when manually focusing on something so far away. I tried with it off, and the moon was so jumpy in my magnified window I couldn't tell which way to turn the ring. With the shutter release half pressed it was smooth and easy. I tried and failed to get this hand held shot at this sharpness with all of my other cameras.

    Again, 100% crop, middle of frame. Hand held @ 200mm. OOC JPG.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 14
  4. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    How about just M5 :rolleyes:
     
  5. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    Sounds like a highway.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. drizek

    drizek Mu-43 Veteran

    492
    Aug 5, 2011
    Sounds like a car on the highway.

    And remember, this is the "E system", all cameras are subdesignations. E-PL1, E-M5, E-P3
     
  7. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    Do you have any other Olympus µ4/3 cameras with IBIS that you could compare it to?
     
  8. bitmatt

    bitmatt Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Apr 7, 2012
    Cleveland
    Matt
    Only an E-PL1. With no EVF holding this steady enough to focus the 50-200 is really hard.
     
  9. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    Nice, I seriously want this camera!
     
  10. LovinTheEP2

    LovinTheEP2 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    619
    Feb 15, 2011
    Toronto
    Just think of the OM-D E-M5 as a E-5 mini variant.. hence OM-D E-M5.. translation OM Body like, Digital version, E-series, Mini 5 :eek:
     
  11. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Sounds like a Leica
     
  12. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Nice shot. A couple of minutes in Lightroom makes it look even better:

    IBIS_moon_2_crop-1.
     
  13. bitmatt

    bitmatt Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Apr 7, 2012
    Cleveland
    Matt
    Thanks! I do have the RAW files too, but I figured for illustration purposes the OOC was more effective.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. ingrid

    ingrid Mu-43 Rookie

    Thank you for this. I just bought the 50-200mm for use with my E-3, but my husband and I will also be sharing use of the EM-5 whenever our pre-order arrives. It's great to see these sharp visuals, handheld. I'm looking forward to experimenting with the combo.
     
  15. nueces snapper

    nueces snapper Mu-43 All-Pro

    Lots of Folks Poo Poo IS

    "Use a tripod", is often heard. But tri and monopods can be a real problem when stalking little birds in the field. As well as for lots of other situations. I'm starting to think the EM5 IBIS is groundbreaking tech. :smile:
     
  16. kenez

    kenez Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Apr 18, 2012
    What noise reduction setting did you use? When I used "low" and "standard" on the full moon I could see some artifacts. When I used "high" there was too much loss of detail. I thought the best result came from "off". Also, the other thing I noticed was the EVF had a hard time dealing with the brightness of the full moon. Often the image was washed out. I did think the IS worked pretty well. I tried the 50-200mm along with the EC-20 for an effective focal length of 400MM (800mm in 35mm terms) and it worked pretty well hand-held.
     
  17. Sammyboy

    Sammyboy m43 Pro

    Oct 26, 2010
    Steeler Country
     
  18. bitmatt

    bitmatt Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Apr 7, 2012
    Cleveland
    Matt
    I have my noise filter set to low, but a lot of people here like it off entirely. I think turning it off makes some sharper details a bit ugly and almost over-sharp, but that's just my opinion. For this moon shot I was using ISO 200, so noise really wasn't much of an issue anyway.

    To expose the bright moon properly (and see it well enough in the EVF to focus) against a darkening sky I used full manual mode. I really like how the EVF responds to changes of control, especially shutter speed. The live image it gives you is just a simulation of the exposure you'll likely get based on your dial-spinnings. Since it isn't actually activating the shutter until you press the release, it has to approximate what it thinks your shot will look like. Unless your settings are extremely wrong it makes a fairly accurate representation. Very neat trick for someone who has been using an optical view for years and has had to shoot test after test to get shutter speeds set correctly.

    The first night (top of this post) was very cloudy and I couldn't get away with a fast exposure. The moon glow just blew the haze right up at wide open apertures. The best I did was between f/6.3 and f/8 with shutter speeds running between 1/50 to 1/100. The final image looked cloudy still, but it was the best I could get hand-held. With a tripod and a longer exposure I could have eeked out a lot more detail, but no way just standing on my front porch.

    The second shot was much easier. It was a clear night and the moon was unobscured by the previous night's haze. I got to use a faster shutter speed, 1/800 @ f/3.5, which is the widest open the 50-200 lens gets at the long end.

    I am very impressed by the live view EVF+new 5 axis IBIS for manually focusing at great distances. Focusing in the magnified view with the shutter release half pressed (activating the IBIS) is actually quite amazing. It almost feels like "bullet time" in the Matrix movies, when everything around slows down and you are still able to move at full speed. Without the IBIS activated the moon jumps through your viewfinder much too fast to track any details, but with IBIS running it is very manageable with an even somewhat steady hand.

    I should note here that I think someone who lives in a much more clear-sky environment than I do (lots of light/air pollution, high humidity as well as constant clouds coming in off Lake Erie) would be able to get this shot tack-sharp pretty easily with the same camera/lens combo. Even my "clear" night doesn't approach the air clarity out in Arizona or New Mexico on an average night.
     
  19. bitmatt

    bitmatt Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Apr 7, 2012
    Cleveland
    Matt
    One more thing I just thought of- if you apply some slight luminance noise reduction to the RAW of a similar moon photo in post it should squash any crappy artifacts you see quite nicely. If you edit RAW files, that is.
     
  20. kenez

    kenez Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Apr 18, 2012
    Thanks. I was also in manual mode but what I noticed was that the EVF would sometime "blow out" the image - just a white blob. However, when I would recompose and half press the shutter again sometimes it would alleviate the problem. I find that I am getting better results of the full moon from my E-5 at ISO 100 but I may just need to spend some more time with the E-M5 since "operator error" is always possible.

    BTW, when using the EC-20 tele-converter I noticed that sometimes the EXIF data was wrong and did not show the correct focal length of 400mm. It was showing half that amount (as if the converter was not attached).